On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 05:17:51AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:22 PM, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 09:13:15AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >> property. This patch adds a bit to elf_link_hash_entry and elf_obj_tdata
>> >
>> > Why is def_protected needed? Surely it is wrong to record the
>> > visibility of a symbol that may not even be the final definition?
>> > Why not just use visibility directly?
>>
>> ELF_ST_VISIBILITY is only merged with relocatable input. We don't
>> mark an undefined symbol as protected just because the definition comes
>> from a protected symbol in a shared object. A protected symbol is
>> meaningful only for a definition with dynamic relocation.
>>
>> def_protected is updated every time when def_regular or def_dynamic
>> is set. It tracks the visibility of the symbol definition, which can be
>> different from the visibility of the symbol reference. It reflects the
>> visibility of the final definition.
>
> OK, thanks for the explanation. Since the flag is only used by the
> x86 backends, please move it to elf_i386_link_hash_entry and
> elf_x86_64_link_hash_entry. You can set it via
> elf_backend_merge_symbol and rearrange _bfd_elf_merge_symbol a little
> so that bed->merge_symbol is called before the bfd_link_hash_new early
> exit.
>
elf_backend_merge_symbol_attribute is a better place to set def_protected.
This is the patch I am testing and I will check it in if it works well.
Thanks.
--
H.J.